-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 299
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Explain referenced/referring schemas #609
Conversation
For several upcoming features, we need better language to talk about the schemas on either side of a "$ref" or similar linking keyword. In particular, annotation collection interacts with references, and calling referenced schemas "subschemas" is confusing and technically inaccurate.
with an instance. | ||
<cref> | ||
Assuming some form of dynamic reference keyword is introduced | ||
related to GitHub issue #558, this section will be updated |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we need to specify the repo here? If it's specified elsewhere in the doc, then probably not.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's linked in the "Note to Readers" section near the very top. In past CREFs we have just used issue numbers. I only reference issues in CREFs, and I don't worry about the formality of those as much as they're intended as asides that will be removed.
<xref target="ref">"$ref"</xref>, the referred schema can be determined | ||
by static analysis of the schema document. Others may take evaluation | ||
context into account, and only be resolvable in the process of evaluating | ||
with an instance. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is great! Really adds clarity.
@handrews I think this can now be merged. There's nothing contravertial here. |
For several upcoming features, we need better language to
talk about the schemas on either side of a "$ref" or similar
linking keyword.
In particular, annotation collection (#530) interacts with references,
and calling referenced schemas "subschemas" is confusing and
technically inaccurate.